Lay (Mis)Perceptions of Sexual Harassment toward Transgender, Lesbian, and Gay Employees
LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer-identified) employees commonly experience sexual harassment at work. The perceptions of lay observers of this harassment, such as their coworkers and managers, likely influence beliefs about appropriate individual and organizational responses to harassment. Thus, we conducted an experiment (n = 279 U.S. college students) to examine (a) whether four motivations (power, prejudice, gender policing, and sexual attraction) were perceived to underlie harassment toward LGT individuals; (b) how these motivations were related to perceived acceptability of the harassment; and (c) and how acceptability was related to recommended responses to the harassment. We found that compared to lesbian, gay, or cisgender heterosexual targets, participants perceived harassment toward transgender targets as less acceptable when they viewed it as more motivated by power and prejudice and less by attraction. Compared to male targets, participants perceived sexual harassment toward female targets as less acceptable when they viewed it as more motivated by prejudice. Finally, perceiving the harassment as less acceptable was associated with recommending that the target report the harassment. These results suggest that harassment targeting men and gay and lesbian employees may be minimized, underlining the need for organizations to protect against employees’ mistreatment and challenge beliefs about sexual harassment motivations and acceptability.
KeywordsLGBTQ employees Sexual harassment motivations Sexual harassment perceptions Organizational responses to harassment Harassment intervention Harassment policy
Portions of this manuscript were completed while NiCole T. Buchanan was on sabbatical leave as a Senior Visiting Scholar with the University of Michigan’s Institute for Research on Women and Gender and the Department of Psychology.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All APA standards for the treatment of participants were followed when conducting the research upon which this manuscript is based (including informed consent). Additionally, this manuscript has not been published elsewhere in whole or in part. The authors have no known conflicts of interest.
- Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1997). Refining sex-role spillover theory: The role of gender subtypes and harasser attributions. Social Cognition, 15(4), 291–311. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1922.214.171.1241.
- Butler, A. M., & Chung-Yan, G. (2011). The influence of sexual harassment frequency and perceptions of organizational justice on victim responses to sexual harassment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20(6), 729–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2010.507351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cortina, L. M., & Berdahl, J. L. (2008). Sexual harassment in organizations: A decade of research in review. In C. L. Cooper & J. Barling (Eds.), Handbook of organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 469–497). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Culbertson, A. L., Rosenfeld, P., Booth-Kewley, S., & Magnusson, P. (1992). Assessment of sexual harassment in the navy: Results of the 1989 navy-wide survey (TR-92-1 I). San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
- Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118 http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.umich.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Grant, J., Mottet, L., Tanis, J., Harrison, J., Herman, J., & Keisling, M. (2011). Injustice at every turn: A report of the national transgender discrimination survey. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.Google Scholar
- Gutek, B. A., & Morasch, B. (1982). Sex-ratios, sex-role spillover, and sexual harassment of women at work. Journal of Social Issues, 38(4), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1982.tb01910.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf.
- Hendrix, W. H., Rueb, J. D., & Steel, R. P. (1988). Sexual harassment and gender differences. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 235–252.Google Scholar
- Herek, G. M. (1996). Why tell if you’re not asked? Self-disclosure, intergroup contact, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. In G. M. Herek, J. Jobe, & R. Carney (Eds.), Out in force; sexual orientation and the military (pp. 197–225). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Hill, C., & Silva, E. (2005). Drawing the line: Sexual harassment on campus. Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Women Educational Foundation.Google Scholar
- Ilies, R., Hauserman, N., Schwochau, S., & Stibal, J. (2003). Reported incidence rates of work related sexual harassment in the United States: Using meta-analysis to explain reported rate disparities. Personnel Psychology, 56, 607–631. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00752.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Munson, L. J., Hulin, C., & Drasgow, F. (2000). Longitudinal analysis of dispositional influences and sexual harassment: Effects on job and psychological outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00192.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Paludi, C. A., & Paludi, M. (2003). Academic and workplace sexual harassment: A handbook of cultural, social science, management, and legal perspectives. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
- Runtz, M. G., & O'Donnell, C. W. (2003). Students’ perceptions of sexual harassment: Is it harassment only if the offender is a man and the victim is a woman? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(5), 963–982. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01934.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Serano, J. (2013). Excluded: Making feminist and queer movements more inclusive. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.Google Scholar
- Smirles, K. E. (2004). Attributions of responsibility in cases of sexual harassment: The person and the situation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 342–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02551.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tangri, S. S., & Hayes, S. M. (1997). Theories of sexual harassment. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 112–128). Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (2004). Issues of merit. Retrieved from http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=255805&version=256094&application=ACROBAT
- Weitzman, L. J. (1979). Sex role socialization: A focus on women. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Wilkerson, J. M. (1999). The impact of job level and prior training on sexual harassment labeling and remedy choice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(8), 1605–1623. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb02044.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Williams, C. W., Brown, R. S., Lees-Haley, P. R., & Price, J. R. (1995). An attributional (causal dimensional) analysis of perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(13), 1169–1183. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02612.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar